Skeptics

[Guest DWA]

Well, any skeptic has to be careful before dismissing a claim as "fake" or "wild."  Most of such dismissals aren't at all "skeptical."  They're just aping the consensus and playing cool.

 

It's really pointless to evaluate all of these on a case-by-case basis.  The case, in fact, has already been made for full-time scientific investigation of this phenomenon, which is the only thing that's going to resolve it.  Other than to post the occasional laugh, I'm done with parsing the evidence.  It's way past time to find out what this is.

 

That's the skeptical attitude.  The non-skeptical one is "we know what this is although we can't tell you why.  Let's all go back to sleep."

[dmaker]

I got quite annoyed a little while ago while reading responses from certain individuals who label themselves "skeptics." Since I am still somewhat perturbed, perhaps this is not the best moment to create a thread, but I will go ahead with what I want to get across. What I am about to say is very important, and I think everyone who is interested in bigfoot in any capacity will be better informed if they understand this.

ANYONE who claims sasquatch is not real is NOT a skeptic. If one actually looks up the definition of the word skeptic, they will find that various dictionaries give something similar to the following: "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions." This definition does not insinuate that a skeptic is someone who questions claims that are not yet established as factual, rather it could be construed as meaning someone who doubts even well established beliefs.[/size]

However, that is not the way the general population interprets the term, and in fact there are definitions that define a skeptic as someone who simply questions or doubts something, no matter whether that thing is well established, on the fringe, or somewhere in between. This is the meaning that I personally accept as being the most accurate. But in viewing both definitions something else becomes obvious...Skepticism is a term of degrees. Meaning that skepticism is a spectrum, at least in my view. There is what we would term "healthy" skepticism, as well "excessive" skepticism somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Excessive skepticism is somewhere near cynicism, or a better term for it would be simply a "disbeliever."

I think the majority of us would agree that healthy skepticism, which is basically the way most people think of skepticism anyway, could be defined somewhere along the lines of "questioning any claim that has yet to be proven, not necessarily because the claim is believed to be incorrect, but because there is not enough evidence to draw an accurate conclusion." I believe that is a very fair definition in fact.

So with a solid working definition of skepticism established, it is self-evident why someone who claims that bigfoot is not real is NOT a skeptic. They are a disbeliever. They could be labelled a skeptic in the sense of unhealthy skepticism, but nobody would want to be labelled that type of skeptic, because a person who questions EVERYTHING, even in the face of proof, is not a rational person.

And most of those who call themselves skeptics in the bigfoot world would like to be thought of as at least reasonably intelligent, and definitely not irrational. So for someone to make the claim that sasquatch does not exist, they are leaving absolutely zero room for the possibility. And as I established already, a true skeptic does not disbelieve, otherwise they would simply be a disbeliever or naysayer. Rather, a true skeptic is someone who questions the reality of sasquatch, but who also realizes that there is a possibility these animals exist, and thus they leave room for this possibility in their beliefs. A person who is a true skeptic would NEVER say that bigfoot does not exist. What they should say is that bigfoot may or may not exist, but currently there is not enough evidence to say that it does. That is a far cry from stating that it does not exist. I am of course neglecting the fact that there truly is evidence out there for the existence of sasquatch, evidence that would scientifically prove that bigfoot exists, in that the DNA would not match any known species, and could be placed somewhere on the evolutionary spectrum of all life. But that is a completely different matter, and not one for this thread.

The entire point of this thread was to (hopefully) wake certain disbelievers up to the fact that by calling themselves skeptics, they are not actually fooling anyone into thinking that they have the intellectual upper hand on those "crazy sasquatch nutters." I say this because I get the feeling that some like to call themselves a skeptic simply because it can often look a bit nicer than coming out and saying in a straightforward manner that "I don't believe in sasquatch." Some may see nothing wrong with saying the latter, but as I have hopefully shown, there definitely is something wrong with that statement. Why? Because stating sasquatch does not exist means that the person is leaving no room for the possibility, and given all of the evidence that is available, and given the fact that sasquatch cannot be disproven, it is not a logical conclusion. A logical person who doubts the existence of bigfoot should say that while they do not believe the animal is real, IT IS POSSIBLE.

For those who don't want to read all that...

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ:

Don't claim you're a skeptic when you say things like "bigfoot doesn't exist," because such a belief is actually contradictory to skepticism, since a skeptic will still allow for the possibility of something, even if they have extreme doubts, while a disbeliever has already made up their minds about something, with absolute certainty. So many who claim to be skeptics should actually call themselves disbelievers.

I don't believe in Sasquatch.

Edited November 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

My View : I Live In Ohio

              

         The 1st day I saw the Patterson footage... I was like... Holy Shhhhhh .....  Or whatever that translates to a 5 yr old. That footage Scared/Excited/Interested me. Ever since then I watched every Bigfoot movie I could.I read every Bigfoot book I saw...  Reading all the stories.... Watching all the the interviews.... I came to the conclusion, Wow!There's a monster out there.. In 1998... There was a Class A sighting in my hometown. I called a few friends to come with me to check out the site. They were less than thrilled to do so... Not sure if they were scared... Or didn't want to waste there time. It took a while to find... But we found the area taped off.... They didn't want to go any further. I told myself I needed to see this... So I went under the tape And about 200 feet in I found the tracks.... They were pretty big! My heart was racing a bit... This was pretty darn cool! Until the cops came... Someone reported us .. We all Got a warnings to stay off property. I wanted to go back... but I never did. But what i did do is started camping all the so-called hot spots in Ohio. Mohican being the closest & Salt Fork being the furthest. We were doing this mostly to get away from it all... Jobs/Family.. But they all knew why I really was there for. They all thought the idea of Bigfoot being real was crazy. In all those outings & everywhere else I've been. California/Nev"Tahoe"/Colorado "Breckenridge,Vail"/NY/Utah/Vermont/Virginia/WV. All mostly for skiing... But on clear nights I would sneak outside during early morning hrs & just listen. I've heard & I've seen allot of things... None of which I would consider to be Bigfoot. In 2005... This video site we all know as YouTube started. Today this very  site is smothered in Bigfoot BS/Hoaxes. Now ... the latest .... The Erickson/Ketchum project... what happened with that?  I'm holding on by a slim thread with the Patterson footage & the Freeman footage appeared real to me as well. I see myself a desperate skeptic.So when I'm a Lil sarcastic in my posts... All I'm really saying is show me something "Real"! 

 

[Sasfooty]

Why do all you (self proclaimed) skeptics expect somebody else to show you? Nobody else showed us.

 

We found it for ourselves....or it found us.

 

In which case, the question is still, why do you expect somebody else to serve up BF for you?

[hiflier]

Hello Sasfooty,

Aw, gee whiz.....LOL. Just kidding. For me getting "out there" was a way of life years ago. Not so much now. When I was out there I wasn't thinking of Sasquatch. There may have been signs, may have been sounds, may have even been presence but I was not tuned to it. I will be 65 in a couple of months and things are seemingly the opposite. I'm tuned to things but not "out there" nearly as much.

I've chosen instead to add to the subject as best can by working on the already compiled data. I do think there is a Sasquatch. But I will nonetheless pick everything apart to get to the truth for the public's knowledge. A good skeptic weighs everything against what already is. One can strike a line through much of what's out there on the web. Sasquatch is a simple concept. It doesn't need much in the way of redundant evidence. There was enough 50 years ago to get science involved and they probably were moreso than than now. What they do have might surprise us if the right doors were knocked on.

There's simply too much stuff for them to not know something. As usual, just my two rocks worth of opinion

[dmaker]

Well, theirs is the dictionary definition.

 

Jeff Meldrum is a skeptic, as defined in the dictionary.  So was Grover Krantz; so is John Bindernagel.  All bigfoot proponents.  All skeptics.

How is Meldrum a skeptic? He publishes and sells a field guide to a creature who's existence he is skeptical of?  That makey no sense.

[Guest]

Obviously, I can't seem to find anything...Or It doesn't care to find me.  I'm No Les Stroud ....I'll Just leave it to the Professionals. It's on my Bucket list to see/find one.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Skeptic4life

[Guest LarryP]

LarryP and OP, I'm happy to say your definitions do not match up with mine on the word skeptic.

 

It is the Merriam Webster definition.

 

Which properly defines a "Skeptic",  as someone who thinks in terms of possibilities, rather than in preserving and thus defending fixed viewpoints.

 

As opposed to to someone who cannot think in terms of possibilities, but thinks that their paradigms are fixed and constant.

 

What is the definition that makes you "happy"?

How is Meldrum a skeptic? He publishes and sells a field guide to a creature who's existence he is skeptical of?  That makey no sense.

 

As a Scientist, Meldrum views science as a tool and methodology, not as some sort of absolute authority to be obeyed.

 

Which makes perfect sense.

Edited November 24, 2013 by LarryP

[norseman]

Why do all you (self proclaimed) skeptics expect somebody else to show you? Nobody else showed us.

 

We found it for ourselves....or it found us.

 

In which case, the question is still, why do you expect somebody else to serve up BF for you?

Because that is how humanity works....... Columbus didn't sail back to Spain and shrug his shoulders when asked about his trip.......it's preposterous.

[Guest DWA]

It is the Merriam Webster definition.

 

Which properly defines a "Skeptic",  as someone who thinks in terms of possibilities, rather than in preserving and thus defending fixed viewpoints.

 

As opposed to to someone who cannot think in terms of possibilities, but thinks that their paradigms are fixed and constant.

 

What is the definition that makes you "happy"?

 

Haha!  The one that makes me happy, my friend, is the one in the dictionary.  Anyone who has followed Meldrum's views on this topic knows that he views all evidence skeptically.  As in:  he goes where the evidence says to go, not where he wants the evidence to take him.

 

As a Scientist, Meldrum views science as a tool and methodology, not as some sort of absolute authority to be obeyed.

 

Which makes perfect sense.

 

Indeed.  The only people whose opinions I trust on this topic are the ones who show me their work, so I can parse their science.  I'm not talking about technical stuff like whether the breemahator and the enfabulator are in ventricular alignment; I'm talking about stuff like:  did he actually consider the evidence?  Is he assuming what he wants to prove?  Do the things he says align with the world I know or not?  Instead of making a case, is he just making the same kind of statements, and asking the same pointless questions, that a layman totally ignorant of the topic might?

 

Meldrum shows his work and it passes with flying colors.  The scientific mainstream?  Not so much.  Their take on this, and the ignorant layman's take, are pretty precisely the same.

Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Why do all you (self proclaimed) skeptics expect somebody else to show you? Nobody else showed us.                                                                                  

 

Well, my personal problem with this is that we aren't all going to see sasquatch any more than we all are going to see a wolverine.  I don't accept something as real unless I see evidence telling me that it is.   Now in my personal case, I have seen more than enough evidence to accept that it points to the animal's reality, and mainstream science needs to pull the blinkers off and get on board with that, and confirm the animal, unless of course the evidence, all of it, is specifically proven to point to something else instead. With regard to this view, it doesn't matter whether I have seen one or not.  But it's not proven to me personally.  If you have seen one, then, well, it is proven to you personally, whatever the society at large thinks.  But don't expect someone to whom it's not proven to accept what you think.

 

We found it for ourselves....or it found us.

 

And it won't do that for everyone.  Now, the extent to which one understands the evidence definitely comes into play, and everyone I have seen denying the animal's reality, or calling it "unlikely," demonstrates serious lack of understanding.  But again, I don't expect someone without that understanding to simply agree with me.

 

In which case, the question is still, why do you expect somebody else to serve up BF for you?

 

I don't expect it; but until the animal is proven, I must to some extent remain skeptical of all claims concerning it.

Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA

[Sasfooty]

Because that is how humanity works....... Columbus didn't sail back to Spain and shrug his shoulders when asked about his trip.......it's preposterous.

 

He didn't load everybody in Spain that was "skeptical" on his ship & bring them over here to prove it, either.

 

If we just shrugged our shoulders when we're asked, we'd probably have a lot less misery.

[norseman]

He didn't need to, he kidnapped Indians and brought back native animals and plants to prove his claims........

If he just made the claim he would have been ridiculed.

Misery comes to proponents because humanity demands proof of their discovery. So yes......no unsubstantiated claim? No misery.

[Will]

Why do all you (self proclaimed) skeptics expect somebody else to show you? Nobody else showed us.

 

We found it for ourselves....or it found us.

 

In which case, the question is still, why do you expect somebody else to serve up BF for you?

Sasfooty, why are you so stingy with it. What would be the harm in providing the proof of what you have seen? Everything you have said would instantly be true, you'd be the hero of the BFF and a lot of skeptics would be eating crow. I'm not sure there is a difference in the most rabid skeptic and the way many knowers have acted on here.

Edited November 25, 2013 by will

[Guest Llawgoch]

I believe the general position is that because they have shared a picture of a distant shadowy blob and some people say "I don't see Bigfoot", that indicates that if they shared their crystal clear photos of Bigfoot people would refuse to accept it and ridicule them.